The author is basically relabelling the “Yokeltarian/Cosmotarian” argument that is being perpetually debated over at reason.com (Hit and Run). The argument goes something like this: there is a group of people (“Yokeltarians”, or, according to this author, “Calhounians”, after the former US Vice-President John C. Calhoun) who are culturally Southern and rural; they distrust the Federal Government because of the Civil War, and so are motivated to limit central government. The worldview of such folk is generally Christian and traditional; they tend to study the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, oppose “social rights” like legal abortion and “same-sex marriage”, and are generally recognized by those living outside their inbred society as neo-luddite morons.

Then, there is another group of people (“Cosmotarians”, or, per the author, “Heinleinians”, after Robert Heinlein, an engineer and science fiction writer), who tend to be culturally urban and sophisticated, not to mention astonishingly intelligent and good-looking, who recognize that people need the “freedom” to murder children in the womb and invent new meanings for words like “marriage”. These people tend to study Science!, see the future, and are working on using science and technology to create utopia on earth, where there will be no disease or scarcity, and where “mother earth” will be cared for as she ought to be, and where death itself will someday be conquered.

The author (he calles himself “Hamilton”), makes some interesting assertions. For example, he describes President Obama as “sort of, kind of” libertarian, because he doesn’t seem to want to regulate the activities of the tech-savvy cosmotarians. He wonders how Christians can square what’s in the Bible with “what’s going on in Silicon Valley”. He asserts that technology, via the atomic bomb, “saved millions of American lives” (and thus shows a need for a strong central government that can arrange the creation and construction of atomic bombs). He is critical of Romney for scorning Newt Gingrich’s plan to colonize the moon. He points out that there is a reason why “gay marriage and free trade are always advancing”.

What’s going on in Silicon Valley that I would need to “square” with the Bible? He mentions a proposal to fuse human consciousness with computers (my paraphrase). Well, it’s a proposal, not a reality, and I seriously doubt it could ever become a reality because, despite the adamant assertions of the Delusional Darwinoids, we humans are not just a mass of chemicals that exist due to a cosmic accident. Life has never been shown to come from non-living materials through natural processes. A better hypothesis is that life was created, by a Creator. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that human consciousness will never be stored in a computer.

As for the atom bomb, I doubt that it really saved “millions of American lives”. Japan had already been trying to surrender for about a year; Douglas MacArthur, the commander in the Pacific, opposed the use of atomic bombs to “get Japan to surrender”. In reality, the atomic bombs were to show Russia that 1.) we had them, 2.) we weren’t afraid to use them, and 3.) Russia better be satisfied with the portion of Europe it had already grabbed. I guess, in a sense, one could argue that the atomic bomb *did* save millions of American lives, by preventing a war with the Soviet Union, but such an argument would be, in the end, merely speculation.

Newt Gingrich also said that the people on the moon would vote to make the moon the 51st state. I recall a “Simpsons” cartoon where the children in Lisa’s class were shown a 1950-era film in which the claim was made that the moon “belongs to America.” Life imitates “The Simpsons”! In reality, Romney was quite right to criticize Newt’s idea: it was a stupid idea.

And the bit about “gay marriage advancing”? Well, while three states have had “same-sex marriage” approved by popular vote, the rest of the states that have legalized “same-sex marriage” have done so through legislatures or the courts. 29 states still have “bans” on the practice instilled in their state constituitons (though I doubt that a same-sex couple in Tennessee that decides to go ahead and “get married” without a state license will be going to jail).

About Free Trade, we don’t have it, except perhaps among the various states. All “free trade agreements” are actually government-managed trade treaties, so it’s a bit naive to think that Free Trade is “advancing”, even though that would be awesome. Also, trade is the one activity that almost all economists of varying political philosophies agree is unequivocably beneficial to all parties involved. It’s not a “left-right” issue, in other words.

He posits four “problems” with Calhounism. 1. The threat of foreign invaders necessitates a strong central government. 2. You can’t have the internet without a strong central government. 3. Calhounians are luddites. 4. Calhounians are ignorant luddites.

The challenge for Heinleinians is: 1. That they’re so darned smart. I’m talking wicked smart. These guys are going to figure out how to become immortal, for crying out loud. Also, they’re going to mine asteroids in space. 2. They’re so freaking rich, that, even when they inevitably discover the technological secret to immortality, they will be the only ones able to enjoy it, which will be a problem. 3. They sort of, kind of, like Progressivism, and would call themselves Progressives. 4. They just might turn into real-life versions of James Bond villains, which would make some people uncomfortable.
My reaction to all this? Meh. “Hamilton” is obviously a Cosmotarian, but he realizes that there aren’t that many Cosmotarians, and that for his movement to succeed, it needs to join with the icky neo-Confederate Sky-Daddy Worshippers. His preferred method would be to persuade the nCSDW crowd to drop the opposition to antepartum infanticide and preposterous notions like “apple pies” made with peaches “same-sex marriage”. Sorry, but if you want people to join you, it is you who must drop the evulz, Ham.

Peel away the rhetoric, and one can see that Obama’s reelection will result in the same Progressive-neocon policies that he’s been enacting since 2008. Buy land and gold and silver to protect yourself, and if you need some sort of political outlet, then focus on state politics. Elect state representatives who will stand up to the FedGov; that’s really the only realistic hope the liberty movement ever had.

It should be quite obvious that the best thing to happen would be for the country to split up into regional nations, and get rid of the Federal Government. Most people are too scared of liberty to ever consider this possibility, unfortunately.

Too bad the GOP didn’t nominate Ron Paul; he could have won the election by hitting Obama where he was truly weak: foreign policy. Most Americans are really tired of the whole “perpetual war” policy that Bush started and Obama embraced. Oh, well; at least I got to write his name in (that’s right; there was a space for write-ins on the MS ballot, after all. They just don’t count a write-in vote unless one of the candidates on the ballot are in some way incapacitated).

Oh, boy, does he ever. If one reads this article and still insists on voting for Romney as the “lessor of two evils”, or whatever, then one has the comprehension capacity of a turnip.

An excerpt:
“As I have noted in previous columns, the differences between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are miniscule on virtually every salient issue. They both supported TARP; they both supported Obama’s economic stimulus package; they both supported so-called assault weapons bans and other gun control measures; Obama has an “F” rating from Gun Owners of America, while Romney has a “D-” rating from GOA; neither man supports a balanced budget; neither man opposes foreign aid; they both supported the bailout of the auto industry; they both have a track record of being big spenders; they both fully support the Federal Reserve; they both oppose a full audit of the Fed; they are both supporters of universal health care; both men are showered with campaign contributions from Wall Street; neither of them wants to eliminate the IRS or the direct income tax; both men are on record as saying the TSA is doing a “great job”; they both supported the NDAA, including the indefinite detention of American citizens without due process of law; they both supported the renewal of the Patriot Act; they both believe that the President has “executive power” to assassinate and kill; both support the “free trade” agenda of the global elite; they are both soft on illegal immigration; they both support NAFTA and CAFTA; they both have a history of appointing liberal judges; they both believe the President has the authority to take the nation to war without the approval of Congress; and neither of them has any qualms about running up more public debt to the already gargantuan debt of 16 trillion dollars.”

1. Which presidential candidate are you voting for and why?
I’m leaning toward Gary Johnson, now, although I was ready to vote for Virgil Goode a couple of weeks ago, because of the antepartum infanticide issue. Well, since millions of “pro-life” Christians are quite willing to vote for Romney, who is effectively pro-choice, then no one can really say anything against a pro-life Christian who is voting for Gary Johnson. I’m unsure how committed he is to non-interventionism, while I’m pretty sure that Goode is solidly opposed to the “War on Terror.” On the other hand, Goode is clearly insane when it comes to that police state-creating initiative popularly known as the “War on Drugs.” I care not one whit for narcotics, and advise anyone who considers using them to “just say no.” But the “War on Drugs” is not about ending drug use. It is, rather, the gov’t’s way to implement the legal and logisitical framework for martial law.
Free Trade is also another major issue where G. Johnson is superior to Goode. The Constitution Party incredibly believes that free trade leads to socialism, and so they oppose it vociferously. This means that Constitution Party candidates are in reality in favor of government control of people’s purchasing decisions. Just like Mitt “I’m a buffoon when it comes to economics” Romney.

2a. Between Barak Obama and Mitt Romney, who do you think would be worse regarding economic freedom, including such things as industrial policy, free trade, regulation, and taxes?
It’s really hard to say. Romney has a bit of the rhetoric on his side, but his China-bashing shows he has very little understanding of the free market. Obama is a thorough moron on the subject. If one could trust a candidate’s rhetoric, I’d say that Romney is better, but one must remember that Romney thought that the government forcing people to purchase health insurance (which his Massachussetts health care plan did) was a “free market solution” to the “problem” of people not having health insurace (regardless whether or not they actually needed it.) AND Romney thinks that trade is a zero-sum game. The man’s a buffoon. He’ll get into office, and try the same Keynesian nonsense that George “I had to violate free market principles in order save the free market” Bush did, resulting in more monetary inflation (which will, at some point, turn into price inflation with a vengeance), more regulation, lower production of goods and services, and a lower quality of life for any and everyone who does not work in an industry favored by the FedGov.

2b. Between Barak Obama and Mitt Romney, who do you think would be worse regarding social freedom issues such as gay marriage, free speech, school choice, and reproductive rights?
Both of them have openly stated a desire for (and in Obama’s case actually took action to effect) the power to throw American citizens in prison without a trial. What is so astounding to me is so many so-called conservatives aren’t in any way upset about this. If Romney came out and said that he believes that the FedGov has the authority to go into people’s homes without a warrant and confiscate their firearms, I would at least hope that “conservatives” would be up in arms, demanding that Romney retract that position. Well, his support for the NDAA of 2012 is actually worse than such a supposed attack on the 2nd amendment. If the president can throw you in prison without a trial, then he can take your firearms away at a whim; he can, in fact, do any variety of unConstitutional activities with impunity.
As to the social issues, Obama is openly for child-murder, Romney is secretly for it (when he says he supports the right of a woman to get an abortion for “health reasons”, that includes “mental health”, which means basically anything. If a woman feels depressed about having a baby, then she can go to the doctor and get permission to kill the child to “protect her mental health.”) Antepartum infanticide is a clear violation of the “non-aggression principle”, so it’s hypocritical for self-describe libertarians to support the heinous practice. On the other hand, the crime of murder is a state matter; Federal Authorities rarely investigate murders, and it’s better for liberty generally that murder be prosecuted by state and local authorities.
There’s no such thing as “gay marriage”, as marriage, by definition, is a heterosexual union. I don’t care if two men (or two women) want to hold out the preposterous idea that they’re married to each other, what I’m opposed to is them getting the government to use violence to try to force me to say the same thing.

2c. Between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, who do you think would be worse regarding foreign policy, military interventions, and the global war on terror (including domestic restrictions on civil liberties)?
As I mentioned before, both loonies are in support of the NDAA of 2012, which should be a deal-breaker for anyone who considers himself a devotee of the Constitution. On the war itself, Obama is clearly Bush’s third term; if he were a Republican, then you would hear no end of praise for him from the likes of Muttonhead Limbaugh and Snotnoggin Hannity with regard to his foreign policy. This is the opposite of the economics question, in which both are approximately equally bad though Romney has better rhetoric. Obama’s 2008 anti-war rhetoric is better than Romney’s insane proposals to continue the puerile, counterproductive, stupid policy of perpetual war, but Obama never even tried to live up to his campaign rhetoric. It’s a bit ironic, but had Obama followed through with his campaign promises, then the economy would be doing quite a bit better than it is currently doing; the wars are destroying the American economy more quickly than even “Obamacare” will when it gets fully implemented.

3. Who did you vote for in 2000, 2004, and 2008? Bush, Bush, and McCain. What a hideous thing to have to live down, too.

4. Apart from the presidency, what do you think is the most important race or ballot initiative being decided this fall? There are various state initiatives that seek to legalize marijuana. While I oppose marijuana use, I support state governments trying to thwart the will of the Federalis in every issue that they can.
5. Reason’s libertarian motto is “Free Minds and Free Markets.” In contemporary America, is that notion a real possibility or a pipe dream? Well, when the Federal Government eventually collapses under its own weight, then the free market, at least, will become a reality posthaste. Until that time, it will grow in power whether the Republicans or the Democrats are in charge.

This is an idea I derived from an article over at lewrockwell.com. The economy is on the verge of distruction. Obama, doubling down on the economic policies of President Bush, has driven it there. If Romney/Ryan had any sort of a clue at all how the economy works, then getting them into office might result in some benefit. But Romney/Ryan are as absolutely clueless about how the economy works as Obama ever was. How can they not be, when both supported TARP? Both men think that government spending is a necessary element to economic growth. Plus, both Romney and Ryan are warmongers, so expect their administration to continue to waste resources that could be used productively.
The problem is, as the article above argued, that the narrative about these guys is that they are pro-free market, so that when they get into office and follow their pro-gov’t, anti-market policies which will inevitably fail, then the free market will get the blame for big-gov’t-style policies, and the need to “return” to big-gov’t-style policies will be loudly proclaimed.

Remember, a vote for Romney is a vote for Obama, since they have the same policy prescriptions for “fixing” the economy, national security, et al. If you truly want to get back to a limited government, then vote third party.